[2:10:25p 2/6/10] <Prod> !logon
[2:12:02p 2/6/10] <Prod> Welcome to the february community meeting
[2:12:21p 2/6/10] <Prod> we've got only a few people here today, so we'll have a fairly limited meeting
[2:12:39p 2/6/10] <Prod> so first thing we'll go over is the control table style
[2:12:45p 2/6/10] <Prod> this will be simply a discussion
[2:12:54p 2/6/10] <Prod> any decisions will be postponed till next meeting
[2:13:18p 2/6/10] <Prod> The current discussion is held at http://abxy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=26771
[2:13:36p 2/6/10] <Prod> the way I see it
[2:13:38p 2/6/10] <Prod> there are now two options
[2:13:44p 2/6/10] <Prod> one is to stick with what we have
[2:14:06p 2/6/10] <Prod> the other is to go with {{prettytable|text-center=true}} (or whatever the markup is
[2:14:14p 2/6/10] <Prod> and then use |align=left for the description cells
[2:14:35p 2/6/10] <Prod> so my main question is why bother?
[2:14:49p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> Web standards.
[2:15:18p 2/6/10] <Prod> the "standards" don't exactly relate to this (they're a few layers of discussion in)
[2:15:33p 2/6/10] <Prod> i think the main point is to look at the reasoning behind the standard
[2:15:38p 2/6/10] <Prod> and see how it benefits us
[2:15:55p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> While the current method may not break your browsers, we can't guarantee it won't break someone else's.
[2:16:11p 2/6/10] <Prod> how so?
[2:16:15p 2/6/10] <Prod> tables are tables
[2:16:24p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Personally, I think SW's top priority should be the simplicity of editing to the user...
[2:16:27p 2/6/10] <Prod> there isn't going to be a significant change in the forseeable future that will damage them
[2:16:33p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> These days there's like a zillion different applications using the web behaving in different ways.
[2:16:58p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> Text-to-speech readers, mobile browsers, and other god-knows what.
[2:18:01p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> Without following web standards, we may get undesired results in apps we didn't account for.
[2:18:26p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Can't we bake the alignment stuff into a template?
[2:18:38p 2/6/10] <Prod> barely saves any trouble
[2:18:42p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> A test run did; used {{l|description}}.
[2:18:42p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> Of course, I already did.
[2:18:59p 2/6/10] <Prod> and just adds another layer of markup to learn
[2:19:19p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Well,
[2:19:24p 2/6/10] <Prod> the stuff that would already be used isn't that complicated that the template would be necessary
[2:19:25p 2/6/10] <Procyon> if it's not a straightforward problem,
[2:19:33p 2/6/10] <Procyon> it won't have a straightforward solution.
[2:19:34p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> The current system uses headers at the top, and the control buttons on the left.
[2:20:24p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> It "works" for now, but if you remove the header tag on these buttons, they'll be left aligned.
[2:20:48p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> That can be corrected if you can apply a style to a given column - which isn't possible under MediaWiki markup or the current version of HTML.
[2:21:10p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> (Actually, it works in HTML, but not for all styles.)
[2:21:10p 2/6/10] <Procyon> right
[2:21:10p 2/6/10] <Prod> it would solve all our problems if it was :)
[2:21:46p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Well,
[2:22:02p 2/6/10] <Procyon> What is the primary drawback of the current situation?
[2:22:11p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Is it simply non-standardization?
[2:22:31p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> At worst, it looks like there's headers on the top, and ~3 header columns on the left.
[2:23:05p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> It's technically valid as a 2D-table thing, but abusing the definition of the header.
[2:23:20p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Is there a good example of this?
[2:23:31p 2/6/10] <Prod> any controls page :)
[2:23:44p 2/6/10] <Procyon> lemme take a look
[2:23:51p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Well pick http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Dark_Messiah_of_Might_and_Magic/Controls as an example.
[2:23:56p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> Right, we're treating data as headers, not separating content from presentation.
[2:24:09p 2/6/10] <Prod> content from presentation is separating css from html
[2:24:17p 2/6/10] <Prod> i don't think it has so much to do with intent
[2:24:22p 2/6/10] <Procyon> That one seems to do it correctly, does it not?
[2:24:40p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> It does it the current way we do it.
[2:24:47p 2/6/10] <Prod> http://strategywiki.org/wiki/User:Wanderer/Sandbox
[2:24:49p 2/6/10] <Prod> that's the proposal
[2:25:26p 2/6/10] <Prod> 12(Wanderer12): btw, i'm not a fan of the rowspans
[2:25:39p 2/6/10] <Prod> i don't think there's really a rule for "a button can only show up in one row"
[2:25:56p 2/6/10] <Prod> though that's debatable
[2:25:58p 2/6/10] <Procyon> And the distinction there is that Wanderer's does not use headers to center the controls?
[2:26:09p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> It's more of a question if "WASD"/L-Stick is a header for something like Move...
[2:26:30p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> Right. It uses CSS for centering, like it should be.
[2:26:47p 2/6/10] <Prod> so what if we did this
[2:26:57p 2/6/10] <Prod> we label the description column as a header row
[2:27:06p 2/6/10] <Prod> and the controls columns as td
[2:27:14p 2/6/10] <Prod> and use a custom controls class in the header?
[2:27:23p 2/6/10] <Prod> would that satisfy the "separation" reasoning?
[2:27:55p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> Doesn't that just reverse the problem?
[2:28:04p 2/6/10] <Prod> not really
[2:28:08p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> The only "headers" are at the top.
[2:28:15p 2/6/10] <Prod> i would consider the descriptions as headers
[2:28:21p 2/6/10] <Prod> row headers
[2:28:31p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I think Wanderer is right...
[2:28:41p 2/6/10] <Procyon> That doesn't sound like a good idea...
[2:28:56p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> The descriptions and the controls all sound like data to me.
[2:28:56p 2/6/10] <Prod> it's a thought experiment
[2:28:59p 2/6/10] <Prod> not a suggestion ;)
[2:29:20p 2/6/10] <Prod> then that gets into an issue of personal opinion
[2:29:48p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Yeah, but I agree with Wanderer's position .
[2:29:48p 2/6/10] <Prod> the description is what happens, and the cotnrols are how to cause it
[2:30:08p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Wouldn't it make more sense if we came up with a centered-image template?
[2:30:23p 2/6/10] <Prod> it looses the simplicity
[2:30:30p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Cuz I run into this problem a lot on other guides.
[2:30:52p 2/6/10] <Prod> it would have to be a table cell style centering
[2:30:53p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> We typically have multiple images and one description per row.
[2:31:00p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Where I would like the images to be centered in a cell.
[2:31:00p 2/6/10] <Prod> it wouldn't be very applicable otherwise
[2:32:08p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> It'd be easier to apply any special markup to the description cells.
[2:32:53p 2/6/10] <Procyon> hmm...
-- Rocky has joined in the meeting.
[2:33:41p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Well, is there any chance we will come to a consensus on this topic today?
[2:33:52p 2/6/10] <Prod> no
[2:33:58p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> We'd have to do a survey for it.
[2:34:03p 2/6/10] <Procyon> ok
[2:34:07p 2/6/10] <Prod> survey's are lame
[2:34:11p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Exactly.
[2:34:20p 2/6/10] <Procyon> :(
[2:34:50p 2/6/10] <Prod> i still don't see the appeal of going to a more compilcated method
[2:35:07p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> It's not that much more complicated.
[2:35:11p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> At best, we could hope that other devices see it in the style of a multiplication table, but there's something that doesn't feel right about the different coloured background.
[2:35:29p 2/6/10] <Prod> 12(Sigma712): i actually like the different colours :)
[2:35:30p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I agree with that.
[2:35:35p 2/6/10] <Prod> it shows that they're different kinds of data
[2:35:37p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Really?
[2:35:39p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> And it's something I'd like to see addressed in the main MediaWiki/HTML markup.
[2:35:59p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I dunno, maybe the color selection is simply TOO different.
[2:36:14p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Maybe same background, different color text would be better.
[2:36:22p 2/6/10] <Procyon> The current proposal is too distracting.
[2:36:31p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> If we want different background colors, that too can be implemented in the templates using CSS.
[2:36:43p 2/6/10] <Procyon> that's cool.
[2:36:45p 2/6/10] <Prod> 12(Wanderer12): yes, but it still makes the markup more complicated
[2:37:03p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Huh? If it's in the CSS, how would it get more complicated?
[2:37:14p 2/6/10] <Prod> cause you need to add classes to the cells
[2:37:19p 2/6/10] <Prod> or the whole table
[2:37:23p 2/6/10] <Prod> and then some of the cellls
[2:37:24p 2/6/10] <Procyon> We should be able to bake all of those controls into a template, and obscure them from the average editor.
[2:37:39p 2/6/10] <Prod> impossible without column styles
[2:37:45p 2/6/10] <Procyon> At some point, you have to trade simplicity for customization.
[2:37:55p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Otherwise, you have the exact problem we have today.
[2:38:02p 2/6/10] <Prod> and simplicity allows greater customization per guide
[2:38:10p 2/6/10] <Prod> adding in templates restricts stuff
[2:38:15p 2/6/10] <Wanderer> With the templates, if we wanted to change the colors later, we need only rewrite the CSS in the templates.
[2:38:29p 2/6/10] <Prod> that's technically putting the css inline ;)
[2:38:36p 2/6/10] <Procyon> True, but once one of us, or Naj, comes along and fixes it up, then all people have to do is follow the design to add to it.
[2:38:46p 2/6/10] <Prod> that's just relying on things to be cleaned up
[2:38:57p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Yeah, but we do that all over the site.
[2:39:16p 2/6/10] <Prod> we should be helping users write guides, not cleaning up after everyone
[2:39:17p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Not that that's a good thing, but still...
[2:39:33p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Anyway, we're 40 minutes into the meeting, and we're bogged down in something we know we can't fix right now.
[2:39:43p 2/6/10] <Prod> heh
[2:39:46p 2/6/10] <Prod> well, we got some discussion in
[2:39:49p 2/6/10] <Procyon> We should identify an action item for this topic, and move on.
[2:39:59p 2/6/10] <Prod> we will leave this further for the next meeting
[2:40:10p 2/6/10] <Procyon> So no action item at all?
[2:40:10p 2/6/10] <Prod> people can bake on what's been discussed so far
[2:40:13p 2/6/10] <Prod> nope
[2:40:30p 2/6/10] <Procyon> :( ok...
[2:40:41p 2/6/10] <Procyon> well, then moving on to the next topic,
[2:40:46p 2/6/10] <Procyon> which we were discussing earlier,
[2:40:46p 2/6/10] <Prod> next topic is from last march :)
[2:40:51p 2/6/10] <Procyon> which is the 300x250 ads
[2:40:54p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Moved it here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Support_desk/Sections/Formatting#Applying_formatting_to_columns
[2:41:13p 2/6/10] <Prod> 12(Sigma712): please make a note in the thread :)
[2:41:18p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> The 300x250 ads look have this shape: http://imgur.com/E6NFA
[2:41:27p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> If the window is 1024x768: http://imgur.com/fPdXL
[2:42:13p 2/6/10] <Procyon> If we were to implement those,
[2:42:25p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> It may be possible to place it automatically after the first header, floated left or right.
[2:42:32p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> I'd recommend a hint for that, though.
[2:42:33p 2/6/10] <Procyon> we would have to have some predefined area for them, like in the header of the site.
[2:42:36p 2/6/10] <Prod> i think that's nasty :P
[2:42:56p 2/6/10] <Prod> i personally think there is no elegant way to integrate them into the current skin
[2:43:01p 2/6/10] <Prod> maybe on the front page
[2:43:06p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Unless you move the Toolbox to the left.
[2:43:13p 2/6/10] <Procyon> In considering these ads, I'm thinking primarily with respect to the SW 2.0 site redesign that Teddy is supposedly working on.
[2:43:14p 2/6/10] <Prod> even then, it's too wide
[2:43:58p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Only for 800x600, but I'm not sure that's a popular resolution anymore.
[2:44:10p 2/6/10] <Prod> 1024x768 is the most popular
[2:44:11p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I personally don't see how we can properly incorporate them into the current site design.
[2:44:29p 2/6/10] <Prod> putting ads into the content doesn't seem useful
[2:44:31p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Not to mention how much reworking of existing guides we'd have to do if we DID incorporate them.
[2:44:35p 2/6/10] <Prod> and just gets in the way of the guide content
[2:45:06p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Per Steam, 1280x1024 is the most popular, followed by 1680x1050, 1024x768, then 1440x900
[2:45:19p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Other (which would include 800x600, is only 3.21%.
[2:45:28p 2/6/10] <Prod> per our website
[2:45:32p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I mean, the bottom line, is there are certain things the wiki layout can accommodate, and there are things which it can't.
[2:45:33p 2/6/10] <Prod> 1280x800 = 20%
[2:45:38p 2/6/10] <Prod> 1024x768 =20%
[2:45:43p 2/6/10] <Prod> 1280x1024 =20%
[2:45:49p 2/6/10] <Prod> er
[2:45:52p 2/6/10] <Prod> 12%
[2:45:56p 2/6/10] <Prod> for that last one
[2:46:02p 2/6/10] <Procyon> What about 1360x768?
[2:46:08p 2/6/10] <Prod> 1440x900 =10%
[2:46:30p 2/6/10] <Prod> 1366x768 =6.5%
[2:46:40p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I see
[2:47:01p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Well, physical resolution aside,
[2:47:15p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I simply don't see how we can successfully incorporate them into our existing layout.
[2:47:22p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Even if we _wanted_ to.
[2:47:30p 2/6/10] <Prod> i say we can't except on the front page
[2:47:31p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Which is a whole other discussion entirely.
[2:47:45p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Yeah, that's true, I could see them on the front page possibly.
[2:48:07p 2/6/10] <Procyon> But I still remember the headache we went through rearranging it the last time >_<
[2:48:16p 2/6/10] <Prod> :D
[2:48:27p 2/6/10] <Prod> that was a major reorganization
[2:48:29p 2/6/10] <Prod> this would be minor
[2:48:42p 2/6/10] <Prod> but do others agree with that?
[2:48:46p 2/6/10] <Procyon> minor would be dropping it on the bottom, below the fold, where no one would see it.
[2:48:50p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> It could be autodetected... Between headers, if there's no floating element, it can float to the right. If there is, it floats on the opposite side.
[2:48:50p 2/6/10] <Prod> can we drop this in all cases except main page?
-- Garrett has joined in the meeting.
[2:49:13p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I think that's a safe call.
[2:49:16p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Hey Garrett'
[2:49:49p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Sigma: What exactly could be autodetected?
[2:49:52p 2/6/10] <Prod> 12(Sigma712): i don't think it's worth the effort
[2:50:19p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> I'd agree, especially since there's less width than other Wikis.
[2:50:40p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Unless you simply tack it on after the end of article content.
[2:50:46p 2/6/10] <Prod> and the income we get off the current ads supports the site well enough that we don't need to start worrying too much yet
[2:50:50p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Which isn't that useful.
[2:50:57p 2/6/10] <Procyon> true
[2:51:01p 2/6/10] <Prod> 12(Sigma712): and ugly :
[2:51:40p 2/6/10] <Prod> as for the front page, we can leave it as an option if we ever feel the need to balance any other changes
[2:51:48p 2/6/10] <Procyon> true
[2:51:51p 2/6/10] <Prod> but i'm going to suggest we just drop the square ads until we need them
[2:51:54p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I like that idea.
[2:52:29p 2/6/10] <Procyon> OK, then unless there's any other thoughts on the topic, let's jump to title disambigs.
[2:52:40p 2/6/10] <Prod> anyone disagreew ith that proposal?
[2:52:53p 2/6/10] <Prod> everyone agree?
[2:53:35p 2/6/10] <Prod> ok
[2:53:38p 2/6/10] <Prod> then next topic
[2:53:45p 2/6/10] <Prod> title disambiguation
[2:53:52p 2/6/10] <Prod> http://abxy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=267923
[2:53:55p 2/6/10] <Prod> http://abxy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=26792
[2:54:53p 2/6/10] <Prod> i'm saying we just drop the title disambig
[2:54:59p 2/6/10] <Procyon> The thing about Melon's suggestion is, while it's a nice idea, it doesn't help at all when it comes to site navigation.
[2:55:00p 2/6/10] <Prod> no real use
[2:55:02p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> "Title (a.k.a. Title2)" works fine; the template is only required if a game has too many names.
[2:55:17p 2/6/10] <Procyon> You _still_ have to make categorized redirect pages.
[2:55:18p 2/6/10] <Prod> in which case it can usually be redirected to a category
[2:55:54p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I just had to do that for Starship Hector and Hector '87
[2:57:10p 2/6/10] <Prod> so anyone want to discuss this further, or can we all agree to drop the template (or not bother creating it)?
[2:57:13p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Alternate names (such as Gryzor and Probotector) get redirected to the main game name (Contra) without issue.
[2:57:28p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> As far as I know, the template isn't required under most cases.
[2:57:37p 2/6/10] <Procyon> What I tend to do is just put both names in the infobox, like so: http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Hector_%2787
[2:58:02p 2/6/10] <Prod> actually you should just pick one name
[2:58:06p 2/6/10] <Prod> and list it in the intro paragraph
[2:58:07p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Or: http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Dragon_Slayer_IV_Drasle_Family
[2:58:17p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Why? They're both applicable.
[2:58:29p 2/6/10] <Prod> http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Hitman_Triple_Pack
[2:58:35p 2/6/10] <Prod> something like that
[2:59:09p 2/6/10] <Prod> describe why it is referred to in more than one way
[2:59:10p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Waaaaaait...
[2:59:13p 2/6/10] <Prod> but leave the infobox with one name
[2:59:31p 2/6/10] <Procyon> If Hitman Trilogy came out 2 days before HTP, why isn't the page called Hitman Trilogy?
[2:59:50p 2/6/10] <Garrett> and then I tend to remove your double infobox naming, so... >_>
[3:00:01p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Oh... :(
[3:00:04p 2/6/10] <Prod> specific case is irrelevant :P
[3:00:12p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Well,
[3:00:14p 2/6/10] <Prod> i couldn't think of another example at the moment
[3:00:15p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I dunno...
[3:00:33p 2/6/10] <Prod> http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Mother_2
[3:00:37p 2/6/10] <Procyon> If nobody likes my approach, I'll stop doing it.
[3:00:50p 2/6/10] <Prod> i don't think it's as clear
[3:01:39p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I'm not certain what's unclear about it though :o
[3:01:46p 2/6/10] <Procyon> People know that some games have more than one name.
[3:01:56p 2/6/10] <Procyon> It shouldn't come as a big surprise to people.
[3:02:02p 2/6/10] <Prod> but it doesn't go into why it has more than one name
[3:02:18p 2/6/10] <Procyon> localization is usually the reason 99% of the time.
[3:02:37p 2/6/10] <Prod> but the infobox doesn't say that
[3:02:40p 2/6/10] <Procyon> And the explination is typically provided in the introduction.
[3:02:43p 2/6/10] <Procyon> ok
[3:02:58p 2/6/10] <Garrett> the standard has been to only refer to the game by its most recognised name--i.e. the one chosen for the page title.
[3:03:05p 2/6/10] <Procyon> It's not a big deal to me, I'll stop doubling up. it just felt like an elegant solution to me.
[3:03:06p 2/6/10] <Prod> so, can we drop any further title disambig templatification?
[3:03:30p 2/6/10] <Prod> if you agree please say so....
[3:03:33p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Er... wait
[3:03:49p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I though the standard has always been to refer to the game by the first name it was published as.
[3:03:57p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Otherwise, Green Beret should be Rush'N Attack.
[3:04:08p 2/6/10] <Prod> right, but that's a separate discussion
[3:04:14p 2/6/10] <Procyon> But it came out as Green Beret first.
[3:04:33p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Yeah, but Garrett said something different, so I wanted to clarify.
[3:04:56p 2/6/10] <Garrett> we go with the ENGLISH name (if no English name, than whatever's closest).
[3:04:59p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Technically, the Dragon Slayer IV guide could have been called the Legacy of the Wizard guide.
[3:05:09p 2/6/10] <Procyon> :/
[3:05:11p 2/6/10] <Garrett> case in point: A Link to the Past vs Kamigami no Triforce
[3:05:15p 2/6/10] <Prod> infobox header has a proper name as compared to what is put in sw title string
[3:05:24p 2/6/10] <Prod> lets not get back into the full naming discussion here
[3:05:29p 2/6/10] <Procyon> ugh...
[3:05:34p 2/6/10] <Garrett> Prod: on the topic itself, I don't think the title disambig template as proposed is necessary.
[3:05:41p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I agree
[3:05:48p 2/6/10] <Prod> other sagree?
[3:05:57p 2/6/10] <Prod> Sigma7, Rocky, Wanderer?
[3:06:07p 2/6/10] <Prod> ashley?
[3:06:33p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Template isn't required, and there's already an acceptable alternative.
[3:06:49p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Plus, the alternate titles are bolded anyway, making them visible.
[3:06:57p 2/6/10] <Prod> so, you agree?
[3:07:03p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> sure
[3:07:16p 2/6/10] <Prod> ok, no one against?
[3:07:26p 2/6/10] <Prod> great
[3:07:34p 2/6/10] <Prod> so the last topic for today is rating categories
[3:07:42p 2/6/10] <Prod> this will be purely a discussion
[3:07:46p 2/6/10] <Prod> as opposed ot a decision
[3:07:48p 2/6/10] <Garrett> as in for ESRB and such?
[3:07:50p 2/6/10] <Prod> http://abxy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=26798
[3:07:51p 2/6/10] <Prod> yes
[3:08:12p 2/6/10] <Prod> i believe the two options are these:
[3:08:12p 2/6/10] <Prod> http://abxy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=26798#p415437
[3:08:41p 2/6/10] <Garrett> how useful would this actually be though?
[3:08:44p 2/6/10] <Prod> implementation is fairly easy
[3:08:45p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> I'm all for it, don't see any reason why not.
[3:08:51p 2/6/10] <Prod> the question is exactly as garrett stated
[3:09:00p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> It may be useful to see which games are suitable for children...
[3:09:11p 2/6/10] <Prod> and the names i mentioned in that post would have to be modified to say they're ratings categories
[3:09:14p 2/6/10] <Prod> can't be that simple a name :)
[3:09:48p 2/6/10] <Prod> 12(Sigma712): i think it'll get too overpopulated for that
[3:09:51p 2/6/10] <Prod> with games that are really old
[3:10:02p 2/6/10] <Procyon> What you really need to answer this question, is how popular ARE category pages?
[3:10:08p 2/6/10] <Procyon> How often are they used to find content.
[3:10:39p 2/6/10] <Prod> series and company pages i find quite useful
[3:11:22p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I agree with that.
[3:11:44p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> On my personal wiki, I use categories, but haven't visited them recently.
[3:11:48p 2/6/10] <Prod> but category pages overall account for less than 1% of our traffic
[3:12:17p 2/6/10] <Prod> 0.9% actually
[3:12:25p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Their main benefit is from keeping track of games released by a given company or in a given series.
[3:12:45p 2/6/10] <Prod> finding games of a certain ratings category doesn't seem that sueful to me
[3:12:46p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> And for organizing completion stages of guides.
[3:12:49p 2/6/10] <Prod> but it's easy to implement
[3:13:24p 2/6/10] <Prod> unless people disagree with those two statements, i'd like to leave this discussion to continue at the next meeting
[3:13:34p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Is there an upper limit to the number of categories on a page?
[3:13:46p 2/6/10] <Prod> 12(Sigma712): the amount people can easly look through :)
[3:14:06p 2/6/10] <Prod> the fewer more specific they are, the better
[3:14:18p 2/6/10] <Procyon> lol
[3:14:30p 2/6/10] <Prod> more specific/useful
[3:14:48p 2/6/10] <Procyon> So far,
[3:14:49p 2/6/10] <Prod> ok
[3:15:08p 2/6/10] <Procyon> we put Games, Date, Publisher/Developer, genre, systems, and #players
[3:15:22p 2/6/10] <Procyon> (and the players one seems the most useless of all to me...)
[3:15:31p 2/6/10] <Prod> i like coop games :)
[3:15:41p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I'm also not fond of the date/month category
[3:15:47p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Co-op may be the only useful category in the player quantity set.
[3:15:59p 2/6/10] <Prod> and justifies the rest :P
[3:16:07p 2/6/10] <Procyon> I like'em too, but how often do you look at [[Category:Single player]]?
[3:16:23p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Or Cat:Multi
[3:16:24p 2/6/10] <Procyon> For that matter, it would be more useful to have a category of "not single player".
[3:16:44p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Oh well.
[3:16:45p 2/6/10] <Sigma7> Cat:MMO for that...
[3:16:56p 2/6/10] <Procyon> OK, I think we covered a good bit of stuff.
[3:17:07p 2/6/10] <Procyon> For next month, I will make it a point to personally invite people to show up.
[3:17:28p 2/6/10] <Procyon> But thank you Garrett, Sigma7, Wanderer, Rocky, and ashley for doing so.
[3:17:36p 2/6/10] <Procyon> It's greatly appreciated, as always.
[3:17:47p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Anything urgent on anyone's minds before we close?
[3:18:05p 2/6/10] <Procyon> OK, I guess not.
[3:18:08p 2/6/10] <Prod> please post suggestions for the next meeting when the next announcement appears
[3:18:15p 2/6/10] <Procyon> Thanks again guys, talk to you soon.
